Official Report: Numerical Index to Questions for Written Answer

Lord Brightman: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether he will arrange to have printed on the cover page of the House of Lords Official Report, against the words "Written Answers" in the list of contents, the serial numbers of the Questions which are answered in that issue.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful for this suggestion. It would not be practicable, for reasons of space, to include a complete list of Questions answered on the cover page of the Official Report. However, officials are actively examining ways to include a numerical index at the back, in addition to the existing alphabetical index. I shall write to the noble Lord when the results of this work are known.

Official Solicitor: Correspondence Language Policy

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is the Official Solicitor's practice, when conducting business with legal authorities or lawyers in a jurisdiction where English is not the first language, to use English or the language of the other jurisdiction.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Each case is considered by the Official Solicitor individually, but in general the Official Solicitor will write in the first language of the recipient of correspondence. However, in order to contain translation costs (whether payable from public or private funds) the Official Solicitor may respond in English where it appears the authority or lawyer concerned is fluent in English or has ready translation facilities.

M6 Toll

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is responsible for setting and approving the level of tolls to be charged for use on the Birmingham northern relief road; and what criteria are used to establish the level of tolls for different classes of vehicle.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Midland Expressway Limited (MEL) was given a concession for the M6 toll (formerly the Birmingham northern relief road) in 1992. Under the Concession Agreement MEL is responsible for all aspects of the M6 toll's operation, including the setting of toll levels. It is obliged to comply with any applicable English and/or European Union legislation.

Prisons: Disinfecting Tablets

Baroness Walmsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether disinfecting equipment is made available to prisoners who use drugs intravenously; if so under which Prison Service order such provision is made; and how frequently prisoners are provided with such equipment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Disinfecting tablets were introduced in prisons in England and Wales in September 1995 as a public health measure but were withdrawn shortly afterwards because of concerns about their safety. Following tests by the Health and Safety Executive, they were successfully reintroduced, on a trial basis, at 11 establishments in 1998–99. The Prison Service has invited tenders for a consultancy to design and implement a strategy to make disinfecting tablets available at all establishments in England and Wales over the next 12 months.

Terrorism Act 2000: Section 44

Lord Dholakia: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether statistics are gathered on the operation of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000; and if not, why not.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Statistics on stops and searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act are published annually in Arrests for Notifiable Offences and the Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE. A copy of the most recent bulletin is in the Library.

Identity Checks for International Travellers: Iris Scans

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Given that the Home Secretary has reportedly reached agreement with members of the G8 to develop an iris-based biometrics system as an extra check to the identities of international travellers, whether due account has been taken about the limitations of the technology as expressed by the United States Department of Defence, Marcus Kuhn of Cambridge University and others.

Lord Filkin: In line with emerging international standards for machine readable travel documents, the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) is investigating the possible inclusion of fingerprints or iris scans as a back-up technology to facial recognition in the British passport and passport card. A tender for this work is currently being evaluated. The study will take into account all relevant information including that referred to by the noble Earl.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether those who enter the United Kingdom illegally who claim asylum and who refuse to reveal what country they have come from and what country they are claiming asylum from are allowed to proceed with their asylum claim; and what administrative procedures are followed in such cases.

Lord Filkin: Irrespective of the method of entry to the United Kingdom, an asylum claim is bound to fail unless a claimant can, amongst other things, demonstrate that he is outside the country of his nationality or place of habitual residence and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. The claim of any asylum seeker who fails to reveal what country he is claiming asylum from would therefore be refused.

National Asylum Support Service Contracted Accommodation: Failed Asylum Seekers

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements are made for accommodation and support of asylum seekers living in National Asylum Support Service contracted accommodation, after their applications have been refused, in circumstances where it is not possible to remove them to their countries of origin.

Lord Filkin: When an asylum seeker living in National Asylum Support Service contracted accommodation receives a final determination on their application support continues for 21 days following a negative decision in the case of single asylum seekers, support continues for families with children under 18 until they are removed or they leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or until they fail to comply with removal directions.
	Where it is not currently possible for a failed asylum seeker to return to their country of origin following a negative decision, an application may be made for support under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Support under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is provided on a full-board basis and accommodation is generally outside the London area.

Iraq: WMD Sites

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many of the 300 sites in Iraq, provisionally identified by the United States Department of Defense as likely to hold weapons of mass destruction and how many of the further 700 sites identified by the United States State Department have so far been examined by allied forces; whether any sites, not previously identified, have been discovered and examined; and how many of these are within the area of operations of the British forces.

Lord Bach: As at 20 May 2003, coalition forces had initiated investigations into 99 sites within Iraq which may be connected to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Investigations have been initiated into a further 53 sites identified since the conflict began. The majority of these sites are outside of the area of operations of British forces. We expect further sites to be identified as investigations progress.
	I am withholding details of sites in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

Tornado F3 Airframes in the Falkland Islands

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in view of the recent use of C-17 sorties, they will change over the Tornado F3 airframes in the Falkland Islands; and whether the A400M will be capable of undertaking similar missions carrying the Tornado or its replacement.

Lord Bach: There is a routine programme to change over Tornado F3 airframes stationed in the Falkland Islands. This can be carried out either by flying the planes direct or by transporting them disassembled in a military C-17 or a civilian-chartered AN124 aircraft. There is no extant requirement to carry a Tornado F3 or its successor (Typhoon) in an A400M aircraft. In the event that the United Kingdom decided that such a capability was desired, a loading trial would be required.

Military Law: Written Guidance

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 28 April (WA 65), when and in what circumstance the Manual of Military Law, contributed to in relation to international humanitarian law by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht and Colonel Gerald Draper, ceased to be published and issued to Members of the Armed Forces, and what written guidance is now published and issued in its place.

Lord Bach: The Manual of Military Law has not been formally withdrawn. A new manual which will deal with the law of armed conflict for all three services, and which will for the Army replace Part III of the manual (The Law of War on Land), is in course of preparation. It is intended that this manual should in due course be published as a joint service publication.
	Legal advisers are available to commanders at all appropriate levels in the operational chain of command, and they have access to the legal resources necessary to enable them properly to advise. The Rules of Engagement under which United Kingdom Armed Forces operate in any overseas theatre of military operations are always consistent with the UK's international law obligations, and with the provisions of UK domestic law that apply to personnel serving overseas.

MoD: Questions for Written Answers

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 24 September 2002 (WA 191,) why no letter has been received by either Lord Jopling or the Library of the House; when that Answer will be provided; and whether the Ministry of Defence still adheres to the guidelines that all Questions for Written Answer should be dealt with within two weeks.

Lord Bach: I regret that the noble Lord has had to wait an inordinate length of time for a reply. I can confirm that I have replied today and placed a copy of my response in the Library of the House.
	The Ministry of Defence continues to adhere to the guidelines that all Written Questions will be answered in two weeks, and the lapse in this case is most regrettable.

Iraqi Prisoners of War

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 6 May (WA 134), whether the arrangements they have agreed with the coalition partners will ensure that Iraqi prisoners within the custody and control of those partners will have the protection of the Geneva convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Lord Bach: The United Kingdom is confident that our partners will abide by their obligations under international law in their treatment of prisoners.

Defence Act 1842

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many times since 1997 and in what places have the powers contained in the Defence Act 1842 been used with regard to footpaths and bridleways; and
	Whether, in each case of the powers within the Defence Act 1842 being used, Section XVII of the Act has been complied with.

Lord Bach: Since 1997 the powers contained in the Defence Act 1842 with regard to footpaths and bridleways have been used a total of three times.
	The locations in which the powers were used are as follows: Lakenheath; RAF Fylingdales Western Bridleway; and Chicksands.
	On two of these occasions at Lakenheath in 1999 and Chicksands in 1997 Section XVII of the Act has been complied with.
	The third case was at RAF Fylingdales in 2002. On this occasion and after legal advice Section XVII of the Act was not complied with.

Royal Navy: Merlin Mk1 Helicopters

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to upgrade the Royal Navy's Merlin Mk1 helicopters.

Lord Bach: We are pleased to announce the start of an assessment phase (AP) to be led by Lockheed Martin UK Ltd, with Westland Helicopters Ltd as strategic sub-contractor, to determine how best to sustain the capability of the Royal Navy's Merlin Mk1 helicopters for future operations. Merlin Mk1 already delivers a quantum leap in capability over the aircraft it succeeded, the Sea King Mk6, and is recognised as crucial across the spectrum of maritime operations. We anticipate an upgraded aircraft entering service towards the end of the decade, building on significant operational experience and technological advances to ensure that the full potential of this versatile and capable aircraft is realised and that it continues to meet our security challenges for decades to come. The AP, costing £18 million, will investigate the most cost-effective way to sustain this world-beating capability and the scope for enhancements to broaden the utility and versatility of the aircraft. The partnering of Lockheed Martin as prime contractor with the world-class manufacturing skills of Westland as strategic sub-contractor is believe to offer the lowest risk to the Ministry of Defence. The AP is planned to complete at the end of 2004 after which a decision will be made on the scope and programme for the demonstration and manufacture phase.

Pensions

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their proposed £1.4 million limit on the capital value of each individuals' pension rights will apply equally to people in the public and private sectors; and, if not, why not.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On 17 December 2002 the Government issued a consultation paper, Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility, which puts forward a proposed framework of benefit rules that would apply to all tax approved pension schemes.
	The proposed £1.4 million lifetime limit would not limit the size of the pension someone could receive, only the amount that attracts preferential tax treatment. The Government are currently considering responses to the consultation paper.

Benefit Sanctions

Lord Addington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the number of people subject to benefit sanction in whole or in part.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Due to the way sanction data are recorded it is not possible to say how many individuals have been subject to a sanction. The Quarterly Statistical Enquiries of Income Support and Jobseekers's Allowance provide data on the number of people subject to certain sanctions at that point in time. The latest information is in the table.
	
		Number of people subject to benefit sanctions as at November 2002 (000s)
		
			  
			 Jobseekers's Allowance 21.1 
			 Income Support 10.3 
		
	
	Source:
	Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.
	Jobseekers' Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.
	2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

Non-Residential Property: Blackwall Ward, Tower Hamlets

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the population and the total rateable value of non-residential properties in the Blackwall ward of Tower Hamlets.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Blackwall ward of Tower Hamlets was estimated to have a mid 1998 resident population of 5,300. The total rateable value of non-residential properties in the Blackwall ward amounted to £270.1 million on 1 April 2003.

NHS: Specialised Commissioning

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the preparedness of primary care trusts to assume responsibility for specialised commissioning has improved since the Department of Health conducted a review last year.

Baroness Andrews: A number of activities have taken place to develop and improve primary care trust (PCT) commissioning skills since PCTs assumed responsibility for commissioning specialised services last April and took over membership of specialised commissioning groups. The National Primary and Care Trusts Development Programme (NatPaCT) has published information on improving commissioning, which includes specialised services. This will be revised on an ongoing basis.
	Guidance issued on 31 March 2003 reaffirms that all PCTs should belong to collaborative specialised services commissioning groups with a two–tier structure being established: Level 1 groups with planning populations between 1 million and 2 million and Level 2 groups for specialised services with planning population between 3 million and 6 million. Strategic health authorities will oversee and performance manage these collaborative specialised services commissioning arrangements.

NHS: Specialised Commissioning

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will protect spending on specialised services in real terms for a further year given the delay in publication of the Hutton review.

Baroness Andrews: To ensure stability during 2002–03, whilst primary care trusts assumed responsibility for commissioning specialised services, primary care trusts were asked to honour previously agreed financial commitments and programmes of service reviews for specialised services. This commitment will not be extended to 2003–04.
	Primary care trusts will receive an extra £12.7 billion over the next three years. This amounts to an average increase over the three years of 30.83 per cent. This certainty of funding will enable health communities to plan their finances and will provide a surer foundation for PCTs to commission services in a way which will deliver improved performance.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003

Lord Smith of Leigh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What criteria have been determined to allocate the £50 million funding to assist local authorities with the implementation of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003.

Baroness Andrews: The indicative allocations for this grant have been published on the Department of Health's website, www.doh.gov.uk/reimbursement. The special grant report will be debated in the House of Commons before the parliamentary recess.

Food Hygiene Enforcement

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any local authorities have reduced their budgets for food hygiene enforcement work; if so, which ones; and whether there is correlation between any such reduction and an increase in food poisoning cases in the area concerned.

Baroness Andrews: The information requested is not held centrally. It is for individual local authorities to set their budgets for food law enforcement work from funding received through the revenue support grant. It is for each authority to ensure that it can meet its statutory obligations and the agreed standards of food enforcement work as set out in the Food Standards Agency Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement.
	Under this agreement, the Food Standards Agency monitors and audits local authority work on food law enforcement, but not the budgets. For 2001, the agency identified 20 local authorities with unacceptably low levels of food law enforcement activity, or for not making any returns. Seventeen of these gave resource issues as part of the reasons for their results.
	The agency is not able to link budgets for food law enforcement with levels of food poisoning cases.

Christie Hospital, Manchester

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action is being taken to save Manchester's Christie Hospital from having to introduce waiting lists for life-saving chemotherapy; and what estimate has been made of the number of cancer patients whose lives will be put at risk if chemotherapy is delayed.

Baroness Andrews: A major review of cancer services in Greater Manchester is to be carried out in the wake of the potential increased waiting times for chemotherapy at the Christie Hospital.
	The review will look at the totality of cancer care in the conurbation both at the Christie Hospital and at local general hospitals. It will cover service management and clinical practice.
	In the mean time, it has been agreed by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority, that chemotherapy at the Christie Hospital will continue to operate as it does at present. Waiting lists will not be introduced at the hospital and money is being redirected from other National Health Service budgets to support the hospital in this.

Christie Hospital, Manchester

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many representations they have received about the threat posed to cancer patients by the cash shortfall faced by Manchester's Christie Hospital; and what replies have been sent.

Baroness Andrews: According to our records there have been no representations on this issue.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How injury surveillance is to be continued by the National Health Service following the closure of the Home Accident Surveillance System; and what information the public health observatories are collecting on consumer product involvement in accidental injuries.

Baroness Andrews: The report of the Accidental Injury Task Force identified a need to strengthen the surveillance of accidental injury at regional and local levels. The Home Accident Surveillance System data were not sufficiently complete to serve as the main tool for local National Health Service surveillance because they were based on a sample of 18 hospitals across the United Kingdom, and did not include injuries on the roads. We are taking forward local surveillance in discussions on the future roles of directors of public health and public health observatories. It is too soon to say whether public health observatories will collect data on product involvement in accidental injuries.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will monitor the progress on accidental injury reduction targets in Our Healthier Nation without the Home Accident Surveillance System.

Baroness Andrews: Progress on the Our Healthier Nation target to reduce the death rate from accidents is monitored using data on registered deaths collected by the Office for National Statistics, and population estimates based on the 2001 census. Progress on the target to reduce serious injury from accidents is monitored using hospital inpatient data collected by the Department of Health, and population estimates. The Home Accident Surveillance System does not provide the information required for monitoring progress on the accidental injury targets and is not used for this purpose.

Domiciliary Oxygen Services

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce the results of the review on domiciliary oxygen services initiated in March 2000; and
	What conclusions they have reached concerning the provision of ambulatory oxygen for domiciliary use; and
	Whether the provision of liquid oxygen fitted with a conservation device will become a National Health Service prescribed product; and
	How much was spent on domiciliary oxygen services in each of the past five years.

Baroness Andrews: The review of the domiciliary oxygen service is at an advanced stage. It has considered the provision of ambulatory oxygen for domiciliary use, the availability of different forms of oxygen, and the use of technologies such as conserving devices. We expect to announce our conclusions shortly.
	The following table gives the information requested on the costs of the domiciliary oxygen service in England to 31 March 2002. These costs, rounded to the nearest £100,000, comprise the costs of oxygen and the equipment to use it, the fees and rental payments to pharmacists and payments to oxygen concentrator contractors. Full information is not yet available for the year to 31 March 2003.
	
		
			 Year ending 31 March Costs (£ million) 
			 1998 32.3 
			 1999 34.9 
			 2000 36.3 
			 2001 38.3 
			 2002 42.0

Physiotherapy: Patient Self-referral

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether patients' self-referral to physiotherapy in primary care has proved cost-effective; and whether such schemes will be available across the United Kingdom.

Baroness Andrews: We understand patient self-referral to physiotherapy is already available in some localities in England and there is nothing to prevent its wider availability if those responsible for services at local level wish. The Department of Health has not initiated any formal pilot schemes.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 12 May (WA 13), whether they will support any proposal to legalise assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

Baroness Andrews: The Government currently have no plans to change the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What decisions have been taken by the North/South Ministerial Council since the suspension of the devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The exchanges of notes between the British and Irish Governments on 19 November 2002 provides for decisions on policies and actions relating to the implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited or their respective functions to be taken by the two Governments. A list of decisions that have been taken under the exchange of notes up until 28 March was placed in the Library on 7 April. The Government will publish shortly details of further decisions taken since then.

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal (WA 103) concerning set up costs for the North/South Ministerial Council, what are the details of the £7,257 spent on carpets and the £13,271 spent on other items.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat accommodation was carpeted in line with Construction Service Supplies Branch guidelines at a total cost of £7,257.
	The £13,271 spent on other items consists of expenditure on a fax machine, photocopier rental, telephone apparatus, catering equipment, a franking machine, shredders and miscellaneous office stationery/equipment.

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what date consultations took place with the Northern Ireland political parties before the exchange of letters with the Irish Government of 19 November 2002, which replaced the North/South Ministerial Council arrangements.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: There were no consultations with Northern Ireland political parties on the content of the exchanges of notes between the British and Irish Governments on 19 November 2002.

Cross-Border Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the exchange of notes with the Government of the Republic of Ireland (Treaty Series No 54 (2002 19 November 2002) allows changes of policy by the implementation bodies such as that caused by a reduction of a body's budget.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The exchange of notes between the British and Irish Governments on 19 November 2002 provides for decisions on policies and actions relating to the implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited or their respective functions to be taken by the two Governments.

Cross-Border Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who set the proportionality funding between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic for the Cross-Border Implementation Service; and on what basis.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The proportionality of funding between the UK Government and the Irish Government for each of the North/South implementation bodies is determined on the basis of the assessed benefit to each jurisdiction from their activities. For calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002 the proportionality was agreed by the Finance Ministers North and South and approved by the North/South Ministerial Council in the context of the annual budget cycle. The proportionality of funding for 2003 was agreed by the Finance Ministers North and South and approved by the British and Irish Governments under the agreement made by the exchange of notes between the two Governments dated 19 November 2002.

Cross-Border Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 30 April (WA 102) concerning set-up costs for cross-border bodies, what are the details of the furnishings and fittings costs for the special European Union Programmes.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The breakdown of the details of the furnishings and fittings costs for the set up of the Special European Union Programmes Body were as follows:
	
		
			 Furnishings(1) Amount (£)(2) 
			 Belfast Office 11,200.27 
			 Omagh Office 4,096.69 
			 Monaghan Office 14,512.92 
			 Fittings 
			 Safe 1,770.47 
			 Air Conditioning 276.23 
			 Artwork 1,413.97 
			 Total 33,270.55 
		
	
	(1) Furnishings comprise desks, chairs, tables and other office furniture.
	(2) Figures relate to expenditure during the first year of operation (2000).

Cross-Border Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is meant in the joint statement issued in conjunction with the Irish Government on 18 December 2002 by "care and maintenance" in relation to cross-Border bodies.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: As indicated in the statement of clarification on 18 December 2002, the British and Irish Governments intend, under the agreement contained in the exchange of notes of 19 November 2002, to take only those decisions required to ensure proper care and maintenance of the implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland in the performance of their necessary public functions. As the statement set out, the two Governments intend only to pursue the policies and actions already agreed in the North/South Ministerial Council and not to introduce any new policies.

Cross-Border Implementation Bodies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 April (HL2098) concerning budgets for Cross-Border Implementation Bodies, why are sterling pounds referred to as GBPs and not UKPs.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: GBP is the standard international currency code for pounds sterling, as determined by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), the worldwide federation of standardisation bodies. The codes are referred to as the ISO 4217 standard and are in general usage worldwide. The maintenance agency for ISO 4217 is the British Standards Institution.

Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 30 April (WA 101) concerning the ability of Northern Ireland departments to move money from one financial year to another as underspend, whether this applies to cross-Border bodies and to other government organisations; and, if not in either case, why.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The end year flexibility (EYF) scheme applies to the NI departmental expenditure limit (DEL), and as a consequence all organisations which are funded from this source can benefit in that the resources available to Northern Ireland are higher than would otherwise be the case. Within this arrangement there is automatic carry-over for some specified categories of expenditure, the largest of which is capital: for the remainder the amount carried over is returned for central redistribution to programmes early in the following financial year. In the case of North/South bodies, the budgets are set for each calendar year, as distinct from financial year, and thus there is no scope for specific EYF arrangements for their individual budgets. In practice, the contributions from Northern Ireland and Ireland to North/South bodies can be managed to address any planning issues that emerge.

Cabinet Office Sub-Committee on Older People

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who are the current members of the Cabinet Office Sub-Committee on Older People; and on what dates it has met since its establishment in 2001.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I refer the noble Baroness to the Written Answer I gave on 6 February 2003, Official Report, (WA 44). It has been established practice under succesive governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

Iraq: UN Weapons Inspectors

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to ensure that any new United Nations resolution on Iraq ensures the return of Dr Blix and United Nations inspectors to play a full part in the location, destruction and eradication of manufacturing potential of and for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Government have been actively engaged in discussions on the issue of independent verification of discoveries made by coalition forces in Iraq. Deployment of UNMOVIC and the IAEA remains an option.
	Dr Blix has himself said that the current situation on the ground in Iraq means that it would not be appropriate for UNMOVIC inspectors to return at present.

Convention on the Future of Europe: Eradication of World Poverty

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to ensure that the Convention on the Future of Europe, chaired by Valery Giscard D'Estaing, makes development spending in the eradication of world poverty central to its recommendations.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The UK has consistently pressed in the convention for poverty eradication to be set out as an objective for the European Union's external actions, and clearly stated as the principle objective of the European Union's development policy. This is reflected in the UK's comments on the draft treaty articles on external action, submitted on 2 May, and most recently in a paper submitted to the convention by the UK, and signed by development Ministers from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

Iraq: Agricultural Reconstruction Appointments

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they were a party to the decision to appoint Dan Amstutz, a former senior executive of the grain exporter Cargill, to oversee the agricultural reconstruction of Iraq; and, if so, why this decision was made in preference to appointing one of the experienced agricultural development specialists available within the United Nations system.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Her Majesty's Government were not involved in this appointment.

Iraq: UNSCR 1325 on Safeguarding the Rights of Women

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What specific actions they are taking to implement Security Council Resolution 1325 to safeguard the rights of women in Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Government is fully committed to Resolution 1325 and wants to see women fully involved in reconstructing a new Iraq. We are building a dialogue with Iraqi women and we are exploring the possibility of holding a women's conference to produce representatives who would attend a national conference shortly afterwards. The UK-funded "Towards Freedom" television channel will soon be transmitting programmes to encourage women to participate in this process. Our military on the ground and our secondees in the Coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) are aware of their responsibilities under Resolution 1325. A gender expert from the Women's Equality Unit at the Department of Trade and Industry will soon join ORHA to focus on these issues.

Israeli Defence Forces

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have made to the Government of Israel about the conduct and training of Israeli Defence Forces in recent actions leading to the death or injury of United Kingdom citizens; and with what results.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Given the number of recent incidents in which foreign nationals and Palestinian civilians have been injured or killed, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr O'Brien) asked the Israeli authorities on 19 April to revise their Rules of Engagement for the Israel Defence Forces in order to avoid a repeat of such incidents. Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv has also made similar representations locally to the Israeli authorities. We will continue to press for these revisions to be made.

UNMOGIP

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information they have received from the United Nations about the cost of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in 2002; whether they will place copies of reports made by UNMOGIP to the Security Council in the Library of the House; and whether they will propose to the Security Council that UNMOGIP be asked to submit a special report on civilian casualties caused by shelling across the Line of Control.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The total cost to the UN for the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) for 2002 was 6,222,950 US dollars. UNMOGIP does not report directly to the United Nations Security Council. We have no plans to ask the Security Council to ask UNMOGIP to submit a special report on civilian casualties caused by shelling across the Line of Control.

Iraq: Members of Former Regime

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contacts they have had with Iraq's neighbours on the possible whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and unaccounted-for senior members of his regime; and whether they are confident that they are not now resident in any neighbouring country.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The coalition has been successful in apprehending some of the "most-wanted" figures of the Saddam Hussein regime. Our efforts continue, but it is not appropriate to disclose operational details.

Sudan

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in conjunction with the Governments of the United States and Norway, they are discussing with the Government of the Sudan methods for preventing breaches of the current ceasefire, and in particular the necessary clearances for flights by the Verification and Monitoring Team.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On 7 April the Government of Sudan lifted flight restrictions imposed on the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team in March. On 7 April the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Special Envoy announced that the Verification Monitoring Team's (VMT) mission to Bentiu had been suspended. This followed concerns expressed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army about the tasking of the VMT. The IGAD Special Envoy has now proposed a compromise position which we hope will be acceptable to both parties. We continue to work with the US, Norway and the mediators to ensure the operationalisation of the VMT as soon as possible.

Sudan

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Sudan Verification and Monitoring Team will be able to investigate outbreaks of violence in Darfur province.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cessation of hostilities between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement does not extend to the conflict in Darfur.

Gibraltar and Morocco: Territorial Waters

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any talks have taken place between the United Kingdom and Spain in relation to the territorial waters between Gibraltar and Morocco.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No.

Middle East: Destruction of Palestinian Homes and Property

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to stop the large-scale demolition of Palestinian houses being carried out by the Israeli Army at Nazlat Issa in the West bank, Rafah in Gaza and Kafr Kassem in Israel.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr O'Brien) has made representations to the Israeli Ambassador about the demolitions in Nazlat Issa. Our Embassy in Tel Aviv has also raised the matter with the Government of Israel and continues to do so.
	We are greatly concerned about the destruction of Palestinian homes and property. Such actions are provocative, exacerbate tension and undermine efforts to end violence and to return to negotiations.

TUPE Regulations

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to implement European Community Council Directive 23 of 2001, dated 12 March 2001, on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses; and what is the reason for the delay in consultations on this directive.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The existing provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—the TUPE Regulations—meet the requirements of the 2001 directive, which was a consolidation of earlier directives. The Government nevertheless proposes to amend the TUPE Regulations in order to improve their operation, and has been carrying out an extensive process of consultation on its proposals. We announced in February that the next stage in this process, formal public consulation on draft revised regulations, will take place later this year. We aim to have the revised regulations in force by April 2004. Consideration of the issue of protection of occupational pension rights on transfer is, however, being taken forward separately in the context of the reform of pensions legislation, and was addressed in the DWP/HMT Green Paper Pensions in the Workplace last December.

Sustainable Energy Research

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their plans to provide higher support levels, international centres of excellence and demonstration projects for research and development to assist United Kingdom industry develop programmes in renewable power technology including wind, wave, tidal and photovoltaic.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government have allocated £348 million for capital grants and support for research, development and demonstration programmes in sustainable energy.
	The Government have in addition allocated a further £28 million to the Research Councils in last year's spending review to support a new cross-council programme, "Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy" (TSEC) which should more than double Research Council investment in sustainable energy research by 2005–06. This will enable the UK Research Councils to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to research issues in the sustainable energy field, including the development of a UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) of high international standing.
	The TSEC programme will build on new cross-council programmes such as the SUPERGEN and Carbon Vision Programmes. SUPERGEN involves the engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Economic and Social Research (ESCR) and the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) which will jointly invest £25 million over five years in a range of sustainable energy research including marine, biomass, hydrogen, photovoltaic, fuel cells, and future networking projects. The £14 million Carbon Vision programme will be supported jointly by the Research Councils and the Carbon Trust.
	The DTI provides capital grants for offshore wind, bioenergy, and photovoltaics projects, and supports demonstration projects in wave and tidal energy through its Renewable Energy R&D Programme. It supports small-scale community and household projects in a variety of renewable energy technologies through its Clear Skies programme.
	The Government are setting out their plans more fully in their response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry, Towards a Non-Carbon Fuel Economy: Research, Development and Demonstration.

British Energy

Lord Brennan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the latest position regarding the restructuring of British Energy.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In the light of today's publication of British Energy's preliminary results for the financial year 2002–03, I am taking this opportunity to inform the House about two aspects of the restructuring plan: the value of the aid that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to give to the company based on BE's estimates of its liabilities; and the company's plan to dispose of its 50 per cent stake in Amergen, its joint venture in the US.
	Value of the aid
	In his statement to the House on 28 November 2002, my noble friend Lord McIntosh said that the Government would contribute significantly to the company's £2.1 billion of historic nuclear fuel liabilities that are managed by BNFL and extend to 2086. In addition he said that the Government would underwrite the fund that will be used to pay for the costs of decommissioning BE's nuclear power stations. These costs together with BE's uncontracted liabilities were estimated in the company's statement to the Stock Exchange on 28 November at £1.6 billion. To the extent that BE's payments fall short of the fund's requirements, the Government will make up the difference. He stated that the cost to government of meeting these liabilities would average £150 million to £200 million a year for the next ten years and would fall thereafter. The DTI is currently considering how the value of its aid for BE should be reported in its annual accounts for 2002–03, and will be discussing this with the National Audit Office,
	BE today has estimated the total value of government's indemnity as £3.6 billion (net present value) in their preliminary annual results for their financial year 2002–03. This figure is simply the difference between their estimate of the total liabilities underwritten by government and funds held by the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF). It does not include an estimate of the future contributions by BE to the NLF to fund its own liabilities.
	We expect the European Commission may shortly disclose, as part of the state aids process, a valuation of £3.3 billion (net present value) for the aid. This figure was prepared according to EC requirements. It is calculated by discounting the estimated amount of aid that government might provide after taking into account an estimate of the amount that the company will contribute to fund its own liabilities.
	This £3.3 billion figure includes £0.9 billion for the estimated value to BE of a tax disregard provided for in the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the commitment to contribute significantly to the historic nuclear fuel liabilities, and an estimate of government's contribution to decommissioning and uncontracted liabilities. The tax disregard will not result in any extra cost to the Government. It has been provided to avoid a large tax charge hitting BE as a result of the aid and thus the need for the aid to be correspondingly higher to achieve the same effect.
	It is important to note that estimates of this kind are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty, particularly when different accounting treatments, assumptions, and discount rates are used in their calculation. The key points are that government's underlying commitment remains the same as it was last year and that our estimates of the cost to government (£150 million–£200 million a year on average for the next 10 years falling thereafter) is unchanged.
	Amergen
	British Energy has been taking steps to realise its 50 per cent interest in Amergen, in accordance with the restructuring principles agreed with the Government on 28 November 2002.
	The company had planned to be in a position to enter into a sale agreement by 30 June 2003. I understand from BE that although discussions with a number of interested parties are ongoing, this timetable will not now be achieved. British Energy, however, has reaffirmed its intention to dispose of its interest in Amergen as soon as practicable.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has confirmed to British Energy that, in view of the progress made to date to sell British Energy's interest in Amergen, she can continue to support the restructuring. However, as my noble friend said in his statement to the House on 28 November, the Government remain prepared for administration in the event that, for whatever reason, the restructuring fails.

Rural Payments Agency: Late Payments

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many late payments are outstanding from the Rural Payments Agency; and whether they will list the number of late payments or failures to pay per month over the past nine months.

Lord Whitty: The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is responsible for the payment of IACS and non-IACS scheme. Because of different operational requirements and scheme payment deadlines the information is presented by scheme.
	Arable Area Payments
	The payment deadline for 2002 scheme year was 31 January 2003.
	
		
			 Total number of valid claims received Payments made within deadline Payments made outside deadline Payments still outstanding % Late 
			 41,338 40,793 456 89 1.31 
		
	
	
		
			 Breakdown of payments made outside deadline by month 
			 February: 341 
			 March: 98 
			 April: 17 
		
	
	Non-Food Set-Aside
	The payment deadline for 2002 scheme year was 31 March 2003.
	
		
			 Total number of valid clams received Payments made within deadline Payments made outside deadline Payments still outstanding % Late 
			 4,061 3,752 242 (April) 67 7.60 
		
	
	Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
	The payment deadline for 2002 scheme year was 31 March 2003.
	
		
			 Total number of valid claims received Payments made within deadline Payments made outside deadline Payments still outstanding % Late 
			 27,095 26,992 36 (April) 67 0.38 
		
	
	Bovine Schemes
	The number of payments for each bovine scheme for the 2001 scheme year which were made after the 30 June 2002 are listed below.
	Following regulatory changes the bovine scheme claims were subjected to extensive cross-checking with the cattle tracing-system operated by the BCMS. This produced significant discrepancies which had to be resolved before payment.
	
		2001 Scheme Year
		
			 Total number of valid claims received Payments made within the deadline Payments made outside the deadline Payments still outstanding % Late 
			 259,818 151,189 107,817 812 41.8 
		
	
	Breakdown of payments made outside deadline by month
	
		
			  
			 July 2002: 19,732 
			 August 2002: 29,072 
			 September 2002: 14,295 
			 October 2002: 14,426 
			 November 2002: 6,287 
			 December 2002: 5,315 
			 January 2003: 3,367 
			 February 2003: 7,024 
			 March 2003: 4,803 
			 April 2003: 3,496 
		
	
	Dairy Subsidy Schemes
	
		
			 Total number of valid claims received Payments made within deadline Payments made outside deadline % Late 
			 6,580 6,574 6 0.1 
		
	
	ERDP
	ERDP scheme claims are subject to rolling payment deadlines that are calculated from the date an individual claim is received by the Rural Development Service which administers the schemes on behalf of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). The exception being the hill farm allowance which is administered by RPA and has a target of 95 per cent of payments to be made by the end of March.
	The latest performance data relating to 2002 showing the number of ERDP claims for each scheme processed within the published targets are:
	
		
			 Scheme Total number of valid claims received Payments made within deadline Payments made outside deadline % Late 
			 Countryside  Stewardship Scheme 19,737 14,803 4,934 75 
			 Environmentally  Sensitive Areas I–III 7,458 5,295 2,163 71 
			 Environmentally  Sensitive Areas IV 3,104 2,949 155 95 
			 Farm Woodland  Premium Scheme 7,706 4,007 3,699 52 
			 Organic Farming  Scheme 1,489 1,087 402 73 
			 Energy Crops Scheme 12 11 1 89 
			 Processing and  Marketing Grant 61 50 11 82 
			 Rural Enterprise  Scheme 898 700 198 78 
			 Vocational Training  Scheme 223 201 22 90 
			 Hill Farm Allowance 11,098 7,214 3,884 65 
		
	
	Non-IACS Claims
	The following table shows the number of payments made within the EU deadline for the non-IACS claims:
	
		
			  Total number of valid claims received Payments within deadline Payments made outside deadline % Late 
			 July 90,791 90,775 16 0.02 
			 August 66,511 66,511 None 0 
			 September 60,868 60,866 2 �0 
			 October 82,401 82,394 7 0.01 
			 November 99,201 99,198 3 0 
			 December 121,572 121,568 4 0 
			 January 105,304 105,222 82 0.08 
			 February 85,492 85,492 None 0 
			 March 84,275 84,267 8 0.01 
			 April 68,102 68,109 7 0.01

Technetium99: Discharge into Irish Sea

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is still their intention to impose a moratorium on the discharge of technetium99 into the Irish Sea from Sellafield.

Lord Whitty: In December of last year, we consulted on a proposal to direct the Environment Agency to consider whether it would be possible to impose a moratorium on the discharge of technetium99 pending the introduction of abatement technology based on the use of the chemical TPP. A number of responses from interested parties have been received, some containing new information, and further scientific analysis of this information is currently being carried out. Once that analysis has been completed, we will decide whether to direct the Environment Agency as we had proposed. We hope to make an announcement in the early summer.

Slug Pellets: Song Thrush Population

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 10 March (WA 152), what evidence they have that song thrushes are in decline in United Kingdom gardens.

Lord Whitty: The best figures on song thrush numbers in gardens come from the RSPB's long-running Big Garden Birdwatch. From 1979 to 2003 there was a decline of 31.1 per cent in the mean number of song thrushes recorded in each garden taking part in the survey. Comparing 2003 with 1985 (when the survey was carried out much more regularly), the decline is 57.1 per cent. These figures show that the decline in numbers occurring in gardens is similar to the overall national trend during the same period. There is the suggestion that the decline since 1985 in gardens has been greater than the national trend but a more detailed anlaysis of the data would be needed to confirm this.
	The BTO has carried out a garden bird survey Garden Birdwatch since 1995 which suggests that song thrush numbers in gardens have been roughly stable in the period 19952003, a trend mirrored by national Breeding Bird Survey data from all habitats.

Slug Pellets: Song Thrush Population

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 10 March (WA 152), what work they are dong to establish whether increased usage of slug pellets in gardens is having an impact on the United Kingdom song thrush population and on other birds and mammals, especially those whose habitat is mainly gardens.

Lord Whitty: The Pesticide Safety Directorate has published reviews of methiocarb (1998) and metaldehyde (1996), two of the major components of slug pellets. The report for methiocarb raised concerns regarding the effects on small mammal populations and noted a high risk to mammals. Methiocarb has high acute toxicity to birds, but considered the risks of direct poisoning of birds from slug pellets quite unlikely because of the repellants used in their manufacture. Metaldehyde was considered to pose a high risk to small mammals and birds from primary and secondary poisoning. Acute poisoning of birds can therefore result from slug pellets, although the number of recorded incidents is relatively few.
	Methiocarb does however pose a high risk to some non-target invertebrate populations. As a result, slug pellets, along with other broad-spectrum insecticides, may have contributed to observed declines in farmland invertebrate populations, which include prey items for farmland birds.
	Such potential indirect effects of pesticides acting on bird populations via changes in their food supply are not currently considered during pesticide registration. However, the Pesticide Safety Directorate has established a subgroup of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, currently chaired by English Nature, with the aim of proposing methods for assessing wider biodiversity effects of pesticides.

Water Fluoridation

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to introduce compulsory fluoridation of water throughout England.

Lord Whitty: The Government have no proposals to introduce compulsory fluoridation of water throughout England. However, the Government are currently giving consideration to supporting a proposal in the Commons, embodied in Early Day Motion 247, for amendments to the Water Bill, which would require water companies to accede to requests from strategic health authorities to fluoridate drinking water in areas where the local population was in favour, and it was technically feasible.

Water Fluoridation

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a free vote on water fluoridation will be given to Members of Parliament in advance of the Water Bill completing its passage through (a) the House of Lords and (b) the House of Commons.

Lord Whitty: If a proposal is brought forward in either House for Water Bill amendments to the provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 relating to water fluoridation, consideration will be given to whether there should be free vote on the government side. How others may Whip is a matter for them.

Bovine TB Testing

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has decided to use lay testers to reduce the backlog of overdue bovine tuberculosis tests.

Lord Whitty: The State Veterinary Service has made a concerted effort over the last 15 months to reduce the TB testing backlog built up during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. At the end of March this year the number of overdue herd tests had been reduced to just over 4,500, down from 27,000 at the end of 2001. With continued co-operation from farmers we hope to have cleared the backlog by the summer.
	Non-veterinarians are not permitted under existing legislation to carry out TB testing. However, Defra is planning to consult stakeholders in the summer on proposals to permit specially trained lay-testers to carry out the procedure.

Red Deer: Baronsdown Sanctuary, Exmoor

Lord Kimball: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the investigations by the State Veterinary Service into the health of the red deer on Baronsdown on Exmoor.

Lord Whitty: The Baronsdown Deer Sanctuary was inspected by officials of the State Veterinary Service on 1 April. The detailed findings of the inspection are confidential to the managers of the sanctuary.

Laying Hens

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which countries in the European Union have yet to implement Directive 1997/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens; which of those countries export eggs to the United Kingdom; how much such imports cost, giving figures on an individual basis by country; and whether they will ban all egg imports from European Union countries which have not implemented the directive.

Lord Whitty: The United Kingdom transposed Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens, and the Commission was notified of this on 3 September 2002. Information on the level of implementation by other Member States of this directive is not available.
	The relative costs of eggs from those member states which have implemented the directive from those which have not cannot therefore be identified. The value of shell eggs imports from other member states for 2002 are listed below.
	
		
			 Member State Value () 
			 Belgium 332,176 
			 Denmark 416,150 
			 Finland 119,362 
			 France 3,332,964 
			 Germany 4,243,512 
			 Irish Republic 367,294 
			 Italy 60,316 
			 Netherlands 6,662,969 
			 Portugal 55,954 
			 Spain 5,259,500 
			 Sweden 60,707 
			 Total 20,910,904 
		
	
	It is the responsibility of each member state to notify the European Commission of the implementation of Council directives and the Commission can take action if a member state fails to implement a directive within the required timescale. Unilateral action by the UK to ban egg imports from member states which have not implemented the directive would be illegal under the single market. Restrictions can only be applied where there is a threat to human, animal or plant health in the importing country.

LEADER+ Programme

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Press Release 4/02 of 7 January 2002 on the LEADER+ European Community Initiative, whether matched funding from government, which lasts beyond one year, is treated in government accounts as an irrevocable forward spending provision.

Lord Whitty: The England LEADER+ Programme has a budget set out in the programme document which has been endorsed by Ministers and approved by the European Commission for the lifetime of the programme.
	There is therefore a commitment for Defra to match-fund this programme at endorsed levels.
	Departmental decisions on resource allocation are currently made annually and we expect LEADER+ to receive the required funding via the normal mechanism.
	Although there is therefore a ministerial commitment to fund the LEADER+ Programme, this does not technically constitute an irrevocable forward spending provision.

Marine Protected Areas

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Given that the required legislation is not yet in place, what the calendar will be for the implementation of the recommendations of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development on marine protected areas for the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone.

Lord Whitty: While the United Kingdom has not declared an Exclusive Economic Zone, this does not affect the rights that the UK may assume as a coastal state in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.
	The UK played a leading role at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in securing a package of challenging international commitments on marine issues, including a commitment to establish networks of marine protected areas by 2012. The main mechanism for meeting this commitment within UK waters will be the designation of Natura 2000 sites offshore, under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. My department will shortly be issuing a consultation document on extending the provisions of these directives to offshore waters, which will provide the legal basis for the designation of sites. I expect the first site to be designated before the end of the year.
	Work on identification and protection of marine protected areas is also being undertaken within the OSPAR Convention, having regard to the commitment under the North Sea Conference to establish a network of sites in the North Sea by 2010.
	Legislative mechanisms are being considered within the framework of the Defra-sponsored Review of Marine Nature Conservation and its associated Regional Seas Pilot Project in the Irish Sea. This is likely to conclude in early 2004.

Dairy Cows: Producer Support Estimate

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will set out the statistical basis for the statement made in the House of Lords on 14 May by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We subsidise every cow in Europe to the tune of two dollars a day (HL Deb, col. 291); whether this figure also applies to the United Kingdom; if not, what would be the appropriate figure for the United Kingdom; and whether they will set out the statistical basis for the figure which does apply to the United Kingdom.

Lord Whitty: The quoted figure is based on the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Producer Support Estimate (PSE) for 2000 of 16.8 billion US dollars for the dairy sector. In 2000 there were estimated to be 20.7 million dairy cows suggesting support in 2000 of 2.22 or 2.04 US dollars per cow per day.
	The PSE is an internationally respected measure of the annual monetary value of gross transfer at the farm gate from consumers (through prices higher than world levels) and taxpayers (through direct support) arising from policy measures that support agricultural production.
	Using the same methodology, but looking at the UK in 2000 suggests a support figure per dairy cow of around 1.60 US dollars. This lower UK figure is a consequence of particularly low prices in the UK compared with the EU as a whole in 2000, following a sharp appreciation of sterling against the euro.